The "watch rapture view"

[Davidpt]

Amil is primarily based on clear, straightforward passages so this idea that it is Amils who don't take things literally while Premils do is false. The difference between Amils (other than Amils like TribulationSigns) and Premils is that Amils are much better at discerning whether a given text is literal or not. You often take literal text figuratively and figurative text literally. There is no basis whatsoever for not taking passages like Matthew 24:15-22 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 literally, but you don't because of your doctrinal bias. You can't discern that those passages should be taken literally while you take a passage like Revelation 20 in the most highly symbolic book in the Bible literally.


Tell me something. If Matthew 24:15-22 and Luke 21:20-24 are not parallel passages, then why did only Matthew and Mark record what Jesus said, as written in Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 and not Luke? And why did only Luke record what Jesus said, as written in Luke 21:20-24, but not Matthew and Mark?

In other words, why would Matthew and Mark only have recorded Jesus's answer to the disciples' second question, as you believe? And why would Luke be the only one to record Jesus's answer to the disciples' first question, as you believe?

I don't look at some of these things the way you do. I don't reason some of these things the way you do. Unlike you, the fact Preterists are clearly wrong about Mathew 24:30,31, 34, to name a few, I see that as a red flag. Why would I want to agree with Preterists who can't even discern what verses 30, 31, 34, are involving? If they are wrong about that in the Discourse, it then makes you wonder, maybe not you, but it does me---ummm---what else could they maybe be wrong about in the Discourse?

What I am factoring in here is something you apparently refuse to factor in. Before Jesus can return, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 and what all that involves has to be fulfilled. You agree it does. You also agree that the Discourse records His 2nd coming. Except you have no temple per your interpretation of the Discourse to even fulfill 2 Thessalonians 2:4. That's what you apparently refuse to factor in. You have Jesus only being focused on the 2nd temple and never on the temple pertaining to the one meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. After all, per your view, the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15 can't be meaning the temple meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 since you have it meaning the 2nd temple before it was destroyed.

Yet, by the time Jesus reaches verse 14 in Matthew 24, or maybe even before that, anything involving 1st century events, He's already done with that. He has moved on, except you have Him stuck in limbo in the first century. Are you going to argue that as of verse 29 He is still focusing on things that might involve the first century? Of course you are not. Yet, you have Him being all over the place here. You have Him involving the final days of this age in verse 14.

Then you have Him once again focusing on the first century though that has zero to do with verse 14 and the end meant. Then in verse 29 you have Him again focusing on what He was focusing on in verse 14, the end. Once again, you are over the place here. You are basically doing what Preterists do with verse 34. They insist that that should be applied to the first century when you and I know good and well that the verses that just preceded verse 34, and the verses that follow, are not even remotely involving the first century. Therefore, it equals taking verse 34 out of context if applying that to the first century.

Therefore, it equally equals taking verses 15-21 out of context if applying those verses to the first century and 70 AD when the verse that just preceded it isn't meaning that era of time, nor the verses that follow verses 15-21, such as verse 29 or even verse 27 for that matter.

But in Luke 21 it is not until verse 24 that He has moved on and is no longer focusing on anything that might involve the first century only. IOW, as of verse 24 at least, nothing He says after that has anything to do with events that can fit the first century leading up to 70 AD. I'm guessing you likely agree that nothing after verse 24 is involving the first century and 70 AD. In my mind, maybe not in your mind, it matters when and where Jesus said what He said in the Discourse.

IOW, Jesus is not all over the place where one minute He is focusing on 1st century 70 AD events, the next minute He is focusing on the final days of this age, then the next minute He is once again focusing on 1st century 70 AD events, then the next minute He is again focusing on the final days of this age. If that's true, verses 24 through the end of that chapter in Luke 21 would have Jesus still doing this except it doesn't since He was never doing that to begin with.

 

[Douggg]

I see no basis for believing that. It's clear to me that Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24a are parallel passages.

Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 have the time of the end abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

Luke 21:20-24 does not.

We are living in the time of the end. Not 70 ad.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't look at some of these things the way you do. I don't reason some of these things the way you do.

Yes, I am well aware of that and have been for many years now. That goes without saying.

Unlike you, the fact Preterists are clearly wrong about Mathew 24:30-31, 34, to name a few, I see that as red a flag. Why would I want to agree with Preterists who can't even discern what verses 30, 31, 34, are involving?

This is not the right approach to take to interpreting scripture. You have admitted to doing this same thing when it comes to not wanting to agree with Catholics who believe in Amil (not all of them do). This shows that you approach scripture with biases of one kind or another which you should not do. Preterists are not wrong about everything. You agree with how they interpret Luke 21:20-24, so how do you bring yourself to do that? Why are you willing to agree with how they interpret Luke 21:20-24, but not with how they interpret Matthew 24:15-22?

If they are wrong about that in the Discourse, it then makes you wonder, maybe not you, but it does me---ummm---what else could they maybe be wrong about in the Discourse?

I do see your point to an extent, and, yet, it's not reasonable to think they are wrong about everything and, again, you do agree with them about Luke 21:20-24 somehow. If you can agree with them about that, then why not Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 as well?

What I am factoring in here is something you apparently refuse to factor in.

Please do not ever say anything like this to me ever again. I make every effort to factor EVERYTHING in. No matter what you want to say about me, you cannot say that I purposely ignore anything or refuse to factor something in. That is absolutely false. I care about the truth and the only way to come to the truth is to be honest with scripture and take ALL of it into consideration.

Before Jesus can return, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 and what all that involves has to be fulfilled. You agree it does. You also agree that the Discourse records His 2nd coming. Except you have no temple per your interpretation of the Discourse to even fulfill 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

Why is that a requirement? I see descriptions of increased deception, apostasy and wickedness in the Olivet Discourse before Jesus returns, just like Paul described in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12. Do you just ignore that?

There is no requirement that Jesus would have referred to the church as "the temple of God" in the Olivet Discourse. That was not a concept that was even talked about yet at that point.

That's what you apparently refuse to factor in.

There you go again. I do not refuse to factor anything in.

You have Jesus only being focused on the 2nd temple

Which temple did He say was going to be destroyed? The 2nd temple. Hello? He was not asked anything about the spiritual temple of God specifically, but He was asked a question specifically about the 2nd temple. So, it makes sense that He would have specifically referred to the second temple.

Yet, by the time Jesus reaches verse 14 in Matthew 24, or maybe even before that, anything involving 1st century events, He's already done with that. He has moved on, except you have Him stuck in limbo in the first century. Are you going to argue that as of verse 29 He is still focusing on things that might involve the first century? Of course you are not. Yet, you have Him being all over the place here. You have Him involving the final days of this age in verse 14.

Why do you keep trying to make this kind of argument against my view when you do THE EXACT SAME THING with Luke 21? You have Him going back and forth between the future and the first century in Luke 21, but that's somehow okay while my doing that with Matthew 24 is not? Don't you see how hypocritical that is?

Then you have Him once again focusing on the first century though that has zero to do with verse 14 and the end meant. Then in verse 29 you have Him again focusing on what He was focusing on in verse 14, the end. Once again, you are over the place here.

Just like you are with Luke 21. So, if someone made a similar argument against the way you interpret Luke 21 would you think that was valid?

You are basically doing what Preterists do with verse 34. They insist that that should be applied to the first century when you and I know good and well that the verses that just preceded verse 34, and the verses that follow, are not even remotely involving the first century. Therefore, it equals taking verse 34 out of context if applying that to the first century.

I don't apply verse 34 to the first century. If you're just going to misrepresent what I believe, as you have done so many times before, then stop talking to me.

Therefore, it equally equals taking verses 15-21 out of context if applying those verses to the first century and 70 AD when the verse that just preceded it isn't meaning that era of time, nor the verses that follow verses 15-21, such as verse 29 or even verse 27 for that matter.

But in Luke 21 it is not until verse 24 that He has moved on and is no longer focusing on anything that might involve the first century only. IOW, as of verse 24 at least, nothing He says after that has anything to do with events that can fit the first century leading up to 70 AD.

Wait a minute here. Are you saying that you think Luke 21:8-19 all applies to the first century and that you don't think that passage is parallel to Matthew 24:4-14 that you believe is all about the future? Despite those passages being very similar? If so, that is ridiculous. That means you act as if Luke 21 is an entirely different Olivet Discourse from Matthew 24 and Mark 13, which it is not.

I'm guessing you likely agree that nothing after verse 24 is involving the first century and 70 AD. In my mind, maybe not in your mind, it matters when and where Jesus said what He said in the Discourse.

This is news to me that you think all of Luke 21:8-24 refers to the first century (except for the times of the Gentiles), so please tell me how you come to that conclusion. That's how preterists interpret Luke 21:8-24, by the way. So, I guess interpreting things like the preterists do is only a problem in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, but somehow not a problem in Luke 21? You clearly have not thought these things through carefully enough.

By the way, you didn't really answer my questions. I asked: If Matthew 24:15-22 and Luke 21:20-24 are not parallel passages, then why did only Matthew and Mark record what Jesus said, as written in Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 and not Luke? And why did only Luke record what Jesus said, as written in Luke 21:20-24, but not Matthew and Mark?

How do you answer those questions? In case you don't understand those questions I also asked these questions...

In other words, why would Matthew and Mark only have recorded Jesus's answer to the disciples' second question, as you believe? And why would Luke be the only one to record Jesus's answer to the disciples' first question, as you believe? Can you please answer these questions?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 have the time of the end abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

Luke 21:20-24 does not.

We are living in the time of the end. Not 70 ad.

There is no basis whatsoever for claiming that Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 are not parallel passages to Luke 21:20-24a. None. Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 are clearly referring to the prophecy in Daniel 9:26-27 because part of the Olivet Discourse relates to the destruction of the city and the temple and that is what Daniel 9:26-27 is prophesying about.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't look at some of these things the way you do. I don't reason some of these things the way you do. Unlike you, the fact Preterists are clearly wrong about Mathew 24:30,31, 34, to name a few, I see that as a red flag. Why would I want to agree with Preterists who can't even discern what verses 30, 31, 34, are involving? If they are wrong about that in the Discourse, it then makes you wonder, maybe not you, but it does me---ummm---what else could they maybe be wrong about in the Discourse?

I can't get over you saying this while at the same time agreeing with the preterist interpretation of Luke 21:8-24. That is just unbelievable and completely hypocritical. Did you forget about the existence of Luke 21 when you said this?

 

[David in NJ]

Nice job of not addressing my point. That's your opinion, but you can't back it up with scripture. Do me a favor and read the first 2 posts in this thread and tell me what you think about what I said here: Unlike Amillennialism, Premillennialism is based on assumptions and speculation rather than on any clear, straightforward scriptures

Premils like to think that they are the ones who take scripture literally while Amils don't, but it is actually Amil that is based on clear, straightforward scriptures, not Premil.

Adam lived 930 LITERAL years

 

[David in NJ]

Jesus did respond to their questions. And what Jesus said is recorded in the text in the order as Jesus said. When you rearrange the verses, you are changing what Jesus said.

Also the abomination of desolation of Matthew 24:15 spoken of by Daniel the prophet is time of the end, not 70ad.

Also the abomination of desolation of Matthew 24:15 spoken of by Daniel the prophet is time of the end, not 70ad.

Continue to remind everyone of this

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Adam lived 930 LITERAL years

LOL. That is completely irrelevant. You're just proving my case that Premil is based on assumptions and speculation while Amil is based on clear, straightforward scriptures. Did you read my first two posts in that other thread?

How do you reconcile your Premil doctrine with clear, straightforward passages like this one...

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Who are the mortals that you think will populate the earth after Jesus returns and how do they survive the burning up of the earth?

 

[David in NJ]

LOL. That is completely irrelevant. You're just proving my case that Premil is based on assumptions and speculation while Amil is based on clear, straightforward scriptures. Did you read my first two posts in that other thread?

How do you reconcile your Premil doctrine with clear, straightforward passages like this one...

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Who are the mortals that you think will populate the earth after Jesus returns and how do they survive the burning up of the earth?

930 LITERAL years is Eternally RELEVANT

therefore God's LOL is x1,000

 

[covenantee]

I did stick to the subject. You were talking about what you thought was amusing about how people interpret Matthew 24:14 and I talked about how amusing it is how you interpret related verses that come before that one that help establish the context of that verse.


Are you not reading everything that I'm saying? I clearly said that I don't believe they were talking in the same context. I clearly said that I believe Paul was talking about the known world at the time, which was the world that was controlled by the Roman empire, which was not the entire world. And I said that I believe Jesus was talking about literally the entire world rather than just the known world within the Roman empire at that time.

Are you not understanding the use of identical expressions by Jesus and Paul, and Paul's direct confirmations of their fulfillments?

Paul was unquestionably aware of what Jesus' had prophesied, and the vernacular that He had employed. Paul was unequivocal in echoing it and confirming its fulfillment.

There's no mention of the Roman empire by either of them. Thomas took the Gospel to India, which was not part of the Roman empire. He was martyred there. The Ethiopian eunuch took the Gospel back to Africa, not all of which was part of the Roman empire. The Gospel was taken to England (which was, yes, part of the Roman empire).

Do you have trouble believing that the Gospel in all of its power and efficacy could have penetrated all nations of the world in that day, before Paul's confirmations?

I don't.

Bro, you are one of us who is more than fully aware of the power and efficacy of the Gospel.

Thanks to the faith and sacrifice of the early Christians, it "turned the world upside down". Acts 17:6

The whole world.

In that day.

 

[Zao is life]

My takeaway from this post is that you think your "Markan sandwich" is edible and mine is not.

I read the rest when I finished laughing. No need to comment because any further comment is old news.

 

[TribulationSigns]

LOL. What a bunch of gibberish.
LOL at ridiculous nonsense like "apostate churches, nursing on dead traditions and false doctrines". It's a minor miracle that you are an Amil because you share something in common with Premils in terms of often not being able to discern what is literal and what is spiritual or figurative in scripture.

Says the natural man — 1 Corinthians 2:14. Of course it sounds like 'gibberish' to you; the things of the Spirit are foolishness to those who are spiritually blind. You're not laughing at me — you're laughing at truths you simply can’t comprehend.

You're mocking God's judgment on His rebellious house as foretold in the Olivet Discourse, yet you cling to your lifeless 70 AD theories — proudly nursing on theological scraps that reduce divine prophecy to nothing more than historical trivia.

And no — I don't split Christ’s Olivet Discourse like you do. God doesn’t need your dispensational scissors. He didn't give one prophecy for Israel and another for the Church. It’s one discourse, one warning, one return of Christ — and only those with spiritual eyes can see the whole picture.

You accuse others of being unable to discern literal from figurative, but that’s rich coming from someone who can't even recognize when Christ speaks in layered, prophetic language. You're not rightly dividing the Word — you're dismantling it to suit your system. That’s not exegesis; that’s self-deception. You are not a true amillennialist. You are a warped partial preterism amillennialist

Discernment doesn’t come from seminary notes or snarky sarcasm. It comes from the Spirit of truth — and clearly, that’s what you’re lacking.

 

[Zao is life]

Hi Zao is life,

Yes, Revelation 12 has symbolism and metaphors in it.

Revelation 12:1-5 is about Jesus being born to Israel, and Satan's attempt to kill Jesus at birth. Which failed as Jesus was born, destined to rule the nations, and is now in heaven, sitting at the right hand of God.

Revelation 12:6, the 1260 days, is the first half of the forthcoming 7 year 70th week of Daniel 9:27, which is also the 1260 days of the two witnesses of Revelation 11:3 that the two witnesses will feed Israel (the woman) the Word of God.

Revelation 12:7-9 is at the middle of the 7 years, of a war that Satan and his angels will be cast down to earth from the (second) heaven, the cosmos. As the time of Satan's power nears an end.

Revelation 12:10 is a proclamation in heaven, that the Jews will have turned to Jesus and the gospel of salvation. And Satan, who now accuses them of their unbelief, cast down to earth for his final days.

Revelation 12:11 iterates that the newly converted Jews will overcome all of Satan's accusations against them, by their being covered by the blood of the Lamb, loyal to Jesus even unto death.

Revelation 12:12 is the reaction of the inhabitants of heaven rejoicing over the action by God to end Satan's power. But woe to the inhabitants of the earth because Satan will be full of wrath, knowing that his time is short.

Revelation 12:13, Satan, in his wrath, will begin to persecute Israel.

Revelation 12:14-16 is the inhabitants of Israel who will flee to the mountains when the abomination of desolation statue image is set up on the temple mount. Where they will be protected by God's power from any attempts by Satan to destroy them.

The time, times, half times is the second half of the 7 years.

Revelation 12:17, the remnant of the woman, i.e. them who did not flee without delay to the mountains, will be persecuted by Satan, until Jesus returns to rescue them.

Thanks for your reply Dougg, As I thought, we don't agree on your interpretation of Revelation 12 after verse 5. IMO your interpretation is based on a faulty interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27 and an obsession with Jews who are not part of Israel because they are the descendants of those who were broken off nearly 2,000 years ago and are still in rejection of the King of Israel.

 

[TribulationSigns]

The difference between Amils (other than Amils like TribulationSigns) and Premils is that Amils are much better at discerning whether a given text is literal or not. You often take literal text figuratively and figurative text literally.

What’s really going on is that you’re spiritually tone-deaf — offended any time God dares to speak in metaphor or layered meaning. Do you seriously think Jesus was just warning people not to grab their laundry on the way out of the house? You read divine prophecy like it’s a fire drill memo. LOL!

You’re not listening — spiritually speaking. So I’ll leave this between you and God, because it’s painfully clear you’re blind to the deeper significance of what Jesus actually said: Judea, the mountains, the housetop, the field, the pregnant woman, the Sabbath, false Christs, false prophets — all supposedly fulfilled during what you claim was the “great tribulation,” the worst the world has ever seen... in 70 AD?

LOL. Really? That’s your mountain-peak of prophetic fulfillment?

You treat divine prophecy like a historical costume drama — no depth, no spiritual weight, just a recap of ancient headlines with some dramatic flair.

Wake up. These aren't quaint survival tips from 70 AD — they're warnings packed with spiritual urgency that you're too theologically dull to discern. Typical preterism-infused amillennialist!

 

[Zao is life]

That guy spiritualizes almost everything. Why would you think you can trust anything he says? There is no indication at all that Jesus was not being literal there.

Matthew 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

Luke 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

What Jesus was saying when He said "Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes." means the same thing as Luke's paraphrase of what He said in Luke 21:21. He was saying that no one in Judea should spend any time gathering their belongings and they should instead start heading to the mountains. And He said no one outside of Judea should enter into it to gather their belongings because by spending time doing that they might get caught up in the coming tribulation when the Roman armies were going to destroy Jerusalem and make it desolate, which they did.


You are trying to relate unrelated verses. In Luke 17 there is no reference to anyone needing to flee to the mountains. Are you forgetting that Matthew 24:17 was said in relation to the need to flee to the mountains? When Jesus comes, no one will be able to flee to the mountains because of the suddenness of everything that will happen once He comes. That is not the context of Matthew 24:15-17 which is in relation to people needing to flee from the coming tribulation. No one knows the day or hour of Christ's future coming so there will be no warnings like an abomation of desolation standing in the holy place and armies surrounding Jerusalem that tells Jewish believers that they need to flee to the mountains. You are missing that the context of Matthew 24:15-17 is completely different from the context of Luke 17:31-32. One relates to a local tribulation in Judea (Matt 24:15-17) and one relates to the global future coming of Christ (Luke 17:31-32).


But, in terms of great tribulation occurring before Christ's future return, why would it be particularly troublesome for pregnant women and nursing mothers in relation to that? It's very easy to see why it would be particularly troublesome for them to flee to the mountains before the destruction of 70 AD, but I don't see how that could relate to tribulation before Christ's return. What is your explanation for that?


Matthew 24:19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

What would Jesus saying "How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers" illustrate in relation to great distress/tribulation before His future second coming?

What would Jesus saying "Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath" illustrate in relation to great distress/tribulation before His future second coming, keeping in mind that their "flight" is in relation to fleeing to the mountains? What does His reference to those in Judea fleeing to the mountains metaphorically illustrate in relation to His future second coming?

You've made it clear that you believe @TribulationSigns has no clue what he's talking about when he talks about the rooftops Jesus was mentioning, and that the verses I posted do not relate to one another.

And you've made it clear that you believe that when Jesus gave examples of the type of human suffering that would accompany the coming great tribulation He was talking about in order to illustrate how bad the coming great tribulation will be, His subject was equally the illustrations He gave by way of example, as it was the coming great tribulation, and His illustrations and metaphor regarding rooftops etc should therefore be taken up literally.

And you've made it clear that you believe that a word like "therefore" can be popped into a text in conjunction with conjunctive words like "and"; "then (tote: "at that time") repeatedly being used in a text that immediately precedes the word "therefore", where the word "therefore" is referring to something else - anything else - except the immediate preceding text.

And you've made it clear that you do not believe that someone seating Himself up in the New Testament sanctuary of God and exalting himself above all that is worshiped and called God, showing himself to be God, can possibly be considered an abomination of desolation in a holy place, because that term referred exclusively to a place that was no more holy in the eyes of God than a Hindu shrine.

So why are you asking me silly questions which are only inviting me to repeat what in your imagination you think you have refuted?

 

[pandaflower]

Because it says the Messiah would be cut off AFTER the end of the 69th week. What comes after the 69th week? The 70th week.

Also, the six things listed in Daniel 9:24 could only be fulfilled by Christ and His sacrifice. There was no other way to make reconciliation for sins except for Christ to shed His blood, for example.

But, verse 24 refers to ending sin.

Not only is sin still here but when we are reborn and given a new nature we supposedly still have a sin nature to contend with.

Where then is the new creation in Christ?

 

[Douggg]

Thanks for your reply Dougg, As I thought, we don't agree on your interpretation of Revelation 12 after verse 5. IMO your interpretation is based on a faulty interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27 and an obsession with Jews who are not part of Israel because they are the descendants of those who were broken off nearly 2,000 years ago and are still in rejection of the King of Israel.

Hi Zao is Life,

Okay, I don't mind if we have friendly disagreement.

I see the 1260 days and the time, times, half time as being the first and second half of the 7 years of Daniel 9:27 and the 7 years in Ezekiel 39:9 that will follow the Gog/Magog attack on Israel in the near future (sometime before the end of 2030).

I agree with you that the Jews still reject Jesus as the rightful king of Israel messiah.

But their rejection of Jesus will change in the middle of the 7 years after 1260 days of thinking the Antichrist is their long-awaited king of Israel messiah.

 

[Douggg]

There is no basis whatsoever for claiming that Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 are not parallel passages to Luke 21:20-24a. None. Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 are clearly referring to the prophecy in Daniel 9:26-27 because part of the Olivet Discourse relates to the destruction of the city and the temple and that is what Daniel 9:26-27 is prophesying about.

You don't believe that the abomination of desolation of Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 spoke of by Daniel the prophet in Daniel 12:11-12 is still unfulfilled ?

 

[David in NJ]

But, verse 24 refers to ending sin.

Not only is sin still here but when we are reborn and given a new nature we supposedly still have a sin nature to contend with.

Where then is the new creation in Christ?

If Christ did not make an end of sin then no one could be saved and we are all DEAD in trespasses and sins.

 

[pandaflower]

If Christ did not make an end of sin then no one could be saved and we are all DEAD in trespasses and sins.

I think there is a difference between no longer being a sinner who sins,as one of his redeemed,compared to the idea sin itself has been put to an end. And is no more.